scott_powell wrote:It was a silly comment not to be taken seriously on what is a rubbish night as a saddler. Get over it.

Ha you telling me to get over something when the joke you made was about something inconsequential 10 weeks ago not said in a jokey way at all? Now that's funny

It was a daft flippant comment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. You missed out me telling happy clappers to fudge off too. Again, another daft comment considering I've been praising Whitney a fair bit recently. I think most see I'm blunt but not too serious on here and I don't particular care if you don't.

scott_powell wrote:It was a silly comment not to be taken seriously on what is a rubbish night as a saddler. Get over it.

Ha you telling me to get over something when the joke you made was about something inconsequential 10 weeks ago not said in a jokey way at all? Now that's funny

It was a daft flippant comment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. You missed out me telling happy clappers to fudge off too. Again, another daft comment considering I've been praising Whitney a fair bit recently. I think most see I'm blunt but not too serious on here and I don't particular care if you don't.

El_Nombre wrote:What are we bothering with 3 at the back in the first place? Because it's fashionable? Because to me it doesn't look like we can pull it off. We played 442 the entire preseason and looked much more solid so why not play it?

Because at least one, more realistically two, of Ozzy, Tyler, & Aygei don't fit the starting XI under 442, & one of them, by necessity, misses out to accommodate the bang out of form Morris. This severely weakens us as an attacking entity.

The formation is not the issue. 352 is what suits this group of players.

How does it it suit us? It doesn't suit the defense at all. We have conceded in every single game so far this season. Sometimes you can't fit all of your best player into a formation that works. 352 may work going forward but I don't think it does defensively for us. To play it we need to play one of Donnellan or Roberts and I'd rather both were back up options to be honest.

Isn't Ismail a winger? You wouldn't have to bring Morris in. Like I say, It seemed to work perfectly fine preseason and we didn't even have the personnel. Joe Edwards was playing left wing. I think Roberts Left and Ismail Right, Edwards and Chambers in the middle, Ozzy false nine and Baka/Agyei striker is much more solid than the 3 at the back we end up playing at the moment.

When has square pegs/round holes ever been the long-term answer to anything? Not to mention that both wingers potentially go in January, and we're right back to a scenario where Morris has to start, irrespective of form.

Where did it work "perfectly well" in pre-season? The defeats at Solihull and Lincoln?

Nope the games where we actually played first team personnel for a decent amount of the game together. I mean we held a championship side doing it. That seems far more impressive than losing 5-1 to a midtable league one team with three at the back now.

Players can play in more than one position. When you play a player completely out of touch with where they normally do, that is square pegs in round holes. I think it's unfair to say that Roberts playing left wing is a square peg in a round hole. And if the problem is loanees going in January then whats the point of playing any of them? Whats the point in playing Donnellan? We are only going to be stuck with Kory Roberts in January. Aren't we right back to square one where all of the loanees are concerned anyway if you look at it like that?

Loanees can be signed on for longer or if needs be replaced. OR change the formation to suit then. That doesn't mean we play the wrong team now because the loanees might go.

scott_powell wrote:It was a silly comment not to be taken seriously on what is a rubbish night as a saddler. Get over it.

Ha you telling me to get over something when the joke you made was about something inconsequential 10 weeks ago not said in a jokey way at all? Now that's funny

It was a daft flippant comment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. You missed out me telling happy clappers to fudge off too. Again, another daft comment considering I've been praising Whitney a fair bit recently. I think most see I'm blunt but not too serious on here and I don't particular care if you don't.

scott_powell wrote:It was a silly comment not to be taken seriously on what is a rubbish night as a saddler. Get over it.

Ha you telling me to get over something when the joke you made was about something inconsequential 10 weeks ago not said in a jokey way at all? Now that's funny

It was a daft flippant comment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. You missed out me telling happy clappers to fudge off too. Again, another daft comment considering I've been praising Whitney a fair bit recently. I think most see I'm blunt but not too serious on here and I don't particular care if you don't.

It was a daft flippant comment, thought you loved 'em.

Spose I'm to take that as a daft and flippant remark too Good one, absolute screamer.

El_Nombre wrote:Players can play in more than one position. When you play a player completely out of touch with where they normally do, that is square pegs in round holes. I think it's unfair to say that Roberts playing left wing is a square peg in a round hole. And if the problem is loanees going in January then whats the point of playing any of them? Whats the point in playing Donnellan? We are only going to be stuck with Kory Roberts in January. Aren't we right back to square one where all of the loanees are concerned anyway if you look at it like that?

Loanees can be signed on for longer or if needs be replaced. OR change the formation to suit then. That doesn't mean we play the wrong team now because the loanees might go.

We weren't talking Kory Roberts though (and "stuck with" is very harsh on a young lad who has never disgraced himself on the field, and looked very good on 2-3 occasions out of- what?- 5?) . I was specifically referencing Kieron Morris. Your original question was "why are we persisting with 352?" I think we've established that in order to play 442, we'd have to either leave out (at least) one of our consensus-best attacking options to accommodate a player who hasn't put in a performance anywhere near his best since March, or play up to three players out of eleven... let's call it, for the sake of argument... out of their most natural or favoured position, just for the sake of keeping that one bloke out of the team.

All of our points this season have come playing 352. We lined up 442 at Gigg Lane, barely registered a meaningful attack all game, and probably would've lost 3-0 in the process on another day, primarily because 352 suits Oztumer, Leahy, Devlin, and the Chambers/Edwards combination a lot better than 442 does. It's a very risky game, compromising exactly half of our outfield, just to either accommodate Morris, or play a bloke out of position to avoid doing accommodating him. In response to your original point, this is why we're playing 352, not because it's "fashionable", as you put it.

Even back to the days of Grigg or Bowerman as lone frontman, there have been hoards clamouring for 442 every time we lose a couple on the spin, and it always seems to neglect the facts that at least one key player (Westcarr, Sawyers, Oztumer) isn't it a natural fit in such a system, and we cannot start with 12 men.

EvenFlow wrote:We weren't talking Kory Roberts though (and "stuck with" is very harsh on a young lad who has never disgraced himself on the field, and looked very good on 2-3 occasions out of- what?- 5?) . I was specifically referencing Kieron Morris. Your original question was "why are we persisting with 352?" I think we've established that in order to play 442, we'd have to either leave out (at least) one of our consensus-best attacking options to accommodate a player who hasn't put in a performance anywhere near his best since March, or play up to three players out of eleven... let's call it, for the sake of argument... out of their most natural or favoured position, just for the sake of keeping that one bloke out of the team.

All of our points this season have come playing 352. We lined up 442 at Gigg Lane, barely registered a meaningful attack all game, and probably would've lost 3-0 in the process on another day, primarily because 352 suits Oztumer, Leahy, Devlin, and the Chambers/Edwards combination a lot better than 442 does. It's a very risky game, compromising exactly half of our outfield, just to either accommodate Morris, or play a bloke out of position to avoid doing accommodating him. In response to your original point, this is why we're playing 352, not because it's "fashionable", as you put it.

Even back to the days of Grigg or Bowerman as lone frontman, there have been hoards clamouring for 442 every time we lose a couple on the spin, and it always seems to neglect the facts that at least one key player (Westcarr, Sawyers, Oztumer) isn't it a natural fit in such a system, and we cannot start with 12 men.

No we weren't but it's the same principle. I'm a big Kory Roberts fan and was impressed against Bradford but he's not ready for regular first team football, he hasn't even fully developed physically yet never mind as a player, which is pretty important for a centre half. Stuck with might be harsh but it's pretty accurate.

No we haven't established that because I gave you scenario where none of them were dropped and Morris doesn't play. Three players out of 11? I count one, Roberts? Who are the other two? A false nine/attacking midfielder is exactly what Ozzy is and Ismail is a winger. And I don't really see , as I have said, Roberts playing out wide as a problem.

Yes we did and as I said, we didn't even have the personnel to play it then. I don't see that it makes any difference to Ozzy or Chambers and Edwards. The Wing backs yes but can we really afford the luxury of them bombing on constantly away from home? Our goals against suggests not.

I have no problem with 352 going forward. It suits Ozzy, Leahy, Devlin. Problem is 352 doesn't suit our defense, and last time I checked a wing backs job was to defend first and bomb on if necessary. Ozzy would be perfectly fine in a 442 playing behind the striker. He does that anyway.

El_Nombre wrote:No we haven't established that because I gave you scenario where none of them were dropped and Morris doesn't play. Three players out of 11? I count one, Roberts? Who are the other two? A false nine/attacking midfielder is exactly what Ozzy is and Ismail is a winger. And I don't really see , as I have said, Roberts playing out wide as a problem.

Yes we did and as I said, we didn't even have the personnel to play it then. I don't see that it makes any difference to Ozzy or Chambers and Edwards. The Wing backs yes but can we really afford the luxury of them bombing on constantly away from home? Our goals against suggests not.

I have no problem with 352 going forward. It suits Ozzy, Leahy, Devlin. Problem is 352 doesn't suit our defense, and last time I checked a wing backs job was to defend first and bomb on if necessary. Ozzy would be perfectly fine in a 442 playing behind the striker. He does that anyway.

I agree with your point about Oztumer playing off a lone striker- I personally don't see it being as effective it is has been with a flat midfield four behind him and only one option ahead, but admittedly this is pure conjecture at this point.

The crux of the matter for me is that Devlin and Leahy appear to have been signed with 352 in mind, and that Donnellan, Tyler, and Aygei have been specifically signed to facilitate that system given the existing personnell (I thought to myself on deadline day, notwithstanding his abilities, "where the hell does Ismail fit in?" and three games on, I'm none the wiser- touch of the Will Randalls about that deal).

Case in point, where you say "Our goals against suggests (the system is to blame, at least away from home)," is coming off the back of, effectively, one abhorrent performance against a side who- lets not forget- also stuck five past Southend. Our only other (narrow) defeat playing 352 was arguablydown to two individual errors, and something of a questionable tactical substitution (involving Ismail, funnily enough). You've suggested yourself in other threads that we were otherwise the better side against Rovers. With so much of the recruitment clearly centering around 352, changing the system off the back of one game would be well and truly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Moving this firmly back on to the topic of last night, here's an interesting view from a Rotherham fan from one of their forums:

"the Walsall number 20 Bakayoko looked a very good player to me. Big enough, good movement and although he might have picked up a second yellow at least he was bothered and working hard unlike one or two of his team mates."

El_Nombre wrote:No we haven't established that because I gave you scenario where none of them were dropped and Morris doesn't play. Three players out of 11? I count one, Roberts? Who are the other two? A false nine/attacking midfielder is exactly what Ozzy is and Ismail is a winger. And I don't really see , as I have said, Roberts playing out wide as a problem.

Yes we did and as I said, we didn't even have the personnel to play it then. I don't see that it makes any difference to Ozzy or Chambers and Edwards. The Wing backs yes but can we really afford the luxury of them bombing on constantly away from home? Our goals against suggests not.

I have no problem with 352 going forward. It suits Ozzy, Leahy, Devlin. Problem is 352 doesn't suit our defense, and last time I checked a wing backs job was to defend first and bomb on if necessary. Ozzy would be perfectly fine in a 442 playing behind the striker. He does that anyway.

I agree with your point about Oztumer playing off a lone striker- I personally don't see it being as effective it is has been with a flat midfield four behind him and only one option ahead, but admittedly this is pure conjecture at this point.

The crux of the matter for me is that Devlin and Leahy appear to have been signed with 352 in mind, and that Donnellan, Tyler, and Aygei have been specifically signed to facilitate that system given the existing personnell (I thought to myself on deadline day, notwithstanding his abilities, "where the hell does Ismail fit in?" and three games on, I'm none the wiser- touch of the Will Randalls about that deal).

Case in point, where you say "Our goals against suggests (the system is to blame, at least away from home)," is coming off the back of, effectively, one abhorrent performance against a side who- lets not forget- also stuck five past Southend. Our only other (narrow) defeat playing 352 was arguablydown to two individual errors, and something of a questionable tactical substitution (involving Ismail, funnily enough). You've suggested yourself in other threads that we were otherwise the better side against Rovers. With so much of the recruitment clearly centering around 352, changing the system off the back of one game would be well and truly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I certainly hope you are right. It's up to Whitney to make it work and will be ultimately responsible.

I'd hasten to add that the Ismail change made no sense to me either but only because he brought Devlin off, who to that point had been our best player in my opinion. Rovers were camped inside their own half so you could have easily played both as I laid out above and taken one of the centre halves off. He went 433 (it looked like) but took his right back off(???) which I still can't fathom.

saddlersjse wrote:Moving this firmly back on to the topic of last night, here's an interesting view from a Rotherham fan from one of their forums:

"the Walsall number 20 Bakayoko looked a very good player to me. Big enough, good movement and although he might have picked up a second yellow at least he was bothered and working hard unlike one or two of his team mates."

Seems to be a lot of praise for Guthrie too, some saying he got the best of the striker he was marking. Seems weird considering the scoreline but there you go.

One seems to think our fans were booing Bakayoko and cheering his sub as well.

philthesaddler wrote:Crosses are difficult to defend - the ball is coming across you, not towards you, for a start. Secondly, you have to attack the ball, thus you possibly don't know where the striker / attacker is in relation to you. Thirdly, the trajectory of the ball is a lot lower, quicker and more difficult to judge than a hoofed ball forward, fourthly, if the cross is good, it's difficult to get away, with crosses from open play, you're most likely running back towards your own goal, so getting a decent clearance is difficult...

Thats why decent teams put all the leg work in to making sure the cross never leaves the wide players boot, and if it does, it gets blocked before it gets anywhere near the penalty area.

Since the first time I saw Whitneys teams I've said we don't stop crosses, and it's the biggest problem we have.

Every league team needs defenders who can deal with crosses. With a good defence and goalkeeper there is little or no danger from a cross. It is far better for a full back to let a winger send over a cross, than let the winger get past him and attack the penalty area.

On average each team in the Premier League has to defend about 18 crosses a match, but only one cross in 92 actually leads to a goal. That is because central defenders and goalkeepers are in the side to deal with them, and it is much easier to defend a cross than to score from one (unless you are playing against the current Walsall defence). Read this analysis for more information and arguments: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/wh ... t-crossing

The third goal last night came after a long throw-in which should have been an easy clearance for a centre-half, but Guthrie just jumped out of the way. The fourth goal was another gentle cross which none of our three centre halves made any attempt to reach. Andy Butler dealt with crosses like those 10 times out of 10. I would say that O'Connor or Preston would have also have been able to deal with them.

Please explain the logic behind that assertion, given that the opposition out-scored us even though they had fewer players for a third of the game. You deserve to win if you score more goals not if you have more of the ball and look the more likely, surely?

Because we had a shed load of corners, a shed load of chances that we actually created, were by far the better team second half and marginally had the best of it first half.

They scored from a freak slip that nobody could do anything about first half, and a mistake while we were pushing for the winner second half.

That is poor management. I don't understand the Devlin sub and I don't understand the formation change, but the players surrendered nothing and certainly didn't deserve to lose. Good enough? I mean, I did explain that logic at length in the post you've selected part of.

Sorry mucker I still don't get how "Because we had a shed load of corners, a shed load of chances that we actually created, were by far the better team second half and marginally had the best of it first half" and " They scored from a freak slip that nobody could do anything about first half, and a mistake while we were pushing for the winner second half." means we deserved to win. If you create loads of chances and don't convert them you deserve fudge all. Goals is all that counts. (And I only picked that little bit of your quote because it can be a pain when people quote whole posts).

booster cogburn wrote:Sorry mucker I still don't get how "Because we had a shed load of corners, a shed load of chances that we actually created, were by far the better team second half and marginally had the best of it first half" and " They scored from a freak slip that nobody could do anything about first half, and a mistake while we were pushing for the winner second half." means we deserved to win. If you create loads of chances and don't convert them you deserve fudge all. Goals is all that counts. (And I only picked that little bit of your quote because it can be a pain when people quote whole posts).

Yes goals are what counts but whether you deserve them, as a team, is a different matter and I certainly felt we did. Some times you win when you don't deserve to and some times you lose when you don't deserve to and I felt this was one of those times.

For example, did Wilson, who was outstanding at the back deserve to be on the losing side? Did Devlin and Leahy who ran their socks off all match deserve to be on the losing side? Did Edwards who I can't remember giving the ball away all game deserve to be on the losing side? Baka, except for his poor touch in the first half, had two very difficult chances go a whisker away, won the red card and was a constant thorn in their side, did he deserve to be on the losing side? I can't believe that they did and I can think of more examples of that for us than I can for them. Their striker was impressive after the red but that was about it. (but I at least tried to cut the quotes down for you).

Edit: Also contrast that performance to last night, when apparently we absolutely got everything we deserved, a right pasting, then you can see the extremes of what you deserve.

saddlersjse wrote:Moving this firmly back on to the topic of last night, here's an interesting view from a Rotherham fan from one of their forums:

"the Walsall number 20 Bakayoko looked a very good player to me. Big enough, good movement and although he might have picked up a second yellow at least he was bothered and working hard unlike one or two of his team mates."

Seems to be a lot of praise for Guthrie too, some saying he got the best of the striker he was marking. Seems weird considering the scoreline but there you go.

One seems to think our fans were booing Bakayoko and cheering his sub as well.

Some were, they were also chanting for him to be sent off when he fouled after already being booked Doesn't exactly help does it.

As has been said, poor performance last night. Their first goal was decent, and either the second or third was poor defending but unlucky to end up in the net after Gillespie saved on the line but pushed it the path of Devlin who knocked it in. Up until that point I thought we weren't too poor in general. Rotherham had been the better team and had had the better chances, most of which they put away, but it was the poor defending leading to the three goals and the way we seemed to completely collapse after that that annoyed me most. Between the third and half time it was just rubbish.

Second half we were much better, in spells. Nicked a goal at the start and for a while looked like we could get another. Then it went poor again, before another 10 minutes or so where we got forward a fair bit, but Rotherham still looked dangerous all second half when they got forward.No real great performances, but the pick for me is Cuvelier when he came on. Morris also did okay when he came on, seemed to be playing wider than he has done recently, which is maybe why he looked better. I would also tend to agree with that Rotherham fan in that Bakayoko looked the most dangerous of our forwards in the second half. First half the whole team was poor, but I thought Bakayoko looked the most determined to get onto the end of long balls, and got stuck in too (hence his yellow card and 2 or 3 other fouls which could have lead to a second from some refs), oh and scored. But still got jeered when going off. First time I have seen Tyler Roberts - he looked quite good on the ball and had a few decent runs forward, but tried to over play it sometimes, and for me didn't look as interested at times as Bakayoko.

I was disappointed with the full backs last night, going forward and defensively. How many times did one of their players effortlessly knock the ball past them around the half way line, leaving the back 3 vulnerable.

Rotherham's half time draw was done by a special guest associated with both clubs... Chris Hutchings.

saddlersjse wrote:Moving this firmly back on to the topic of last night, here's an interesting view from a Rotherham fan from one of their forums:

"the Walsall number 20 Bakayoko looked a very good player to me. Big enough, good movement and although he might have picked up a second yellow at least he was bothered and working hard unlike one or two of his team mates."

Seems to be a lot of praise for Guthrie too, some saying he got the best of the striker he was marking. Seems weird considering the scoreline but there you go.

One seems to think our fans were booing Bakayoko and cheering his sub as well.

Some were, they were also chanting for him to be sent off when he fouled after already being booked Doesn't exactly help does it.

As has been said, poor performance last night. Their first goal was decent, and either the second or third was poor defending but unlucky to end up in the net after Gillespie saved on the line but pushed it the path of Devlin who knocked it in. Up until that point I thought we weren't too poor in general. Rotherham had been the better team and had had the better chances, most of which they put away, but it was the poor defending leading to the three goals and the way we seemed to completely collapse after that that annoyed me most. Between the third and half time it was just rubbish.

Second half we were much better, in spells. Nicked a goal at the start and for a while looked like we could get another. Then it went poor again, before another 10 minutes or so where we got forward a fair bit, but Rotherham still looked dangerous all second half when they got forward.No real great performances, but the pick for me is Cuvelier when he came on. Morris also did okay when he came on, seemed to be playing wider than he has done recently, which is maybe why he looked better. I would also tend to agree with that Rotherham fan in that Bakayoko looked the most dangerous of our forwards in the second half. First half the whole team was poor, but I thought Bakayoko looked the most determined to get onto the end of long balls, and got stuck in too (hence his yellow card and 2 or 3 other fouls which could have lead to a second from some refs), oh and scored. But still got jeered when going off. First time I have seen Tyler Roberts - he looked quite good on the ball and had a few decent runs forward, but tried to over play it sometimes, and for me didn't look as interested at times as Bakayoko.

I was disappointed with the full backs last night, going forward and defensively. How many times did one of their players effortlessly knock the ball past them around the half way line, leaving the back 3 vulnerable.

Rotherham's half time draw was done by a special guest associated with both clubs... Chris Hutchings.

I'm not having that. Bakayoko was poor on Tuesday, however no worse than the rest of them.

Devlin and particularly Leahy were poor throughout. Rotherham had a field day down their right side all evening.

saddlersjse wrote:Moving this firmly back on to the topic of last night, here's an interesting view from a Rotherham fan from one of their forums:

"the Walsall number 20 Bakayoko looked a very good player to me. Big enough, good movement and although he might have picked up a second yellow at least he was bothered and working hard unlike one or two of his team mates."

Seems to be a lot of praise for Guthrie too, some saying he got the best of the striker he was marking. Seems weird considering the scoreline but there you go.

One seems to think our fans were booing Bakayoko and cheering his sub as well.

Some were, they were also chanting for him to be sent off when he fouled after already being booked Doesn't exactly help does it.

As has been said, poor performance last night. Their first goal was decent, and either the second or third was poor defending but unlucky to end up in the net after Gillespie saved on the line but pushed it the path of Devlin who knocked it in. Up until that point I thought we weren't too poor in general. Rotherham had been the better team and had had the better chances, most of which they put away, but it was the poor defending leading to the three goals and the way we seemed to completely collapse after that that annoyed me most. Between the third and half time it was just rubbish.

Second half we were much better, in spells. Nicked a goal at the start and for a while looked like we could get another. Then it went poor again, before another 10 minutes or so where we got forward a fair bit, but Rotherham still looked dangerous all second half when they got forward.No real great performances, but the pick for me is Cuvelier when he came on. Morris also did okay when he came on, seemed to be playing wider than he has done recently, which is maybe why he looked better. I would also tend to agree with that Rotherham fan in that Bakayoko looked the most dangerous of our forwards in the second half. First half the whole team was poor, but I thought Bakayoko looked the most determined to get onto the end of long balls, and got stuck in too (hence his yellow card and 2 or 3 other fouls which could have lead to a second from some refs), oh and scored. But still got jeered when going off. First time I have seen Tyler Roberts - he looked quite good on the ball and had a few decent runs forward, but tried to over play it sometimes, and for me didn't look as interested at times as Bakayoko.

I was disappointed with the full backs last night, going forward and defensively. How many times did one of their players effortlessly knock the ball past them around the half way line, leaving the back 3 vulnerable.

Rotherham's half time draw was done by a special guest associated with both clubs... Chris Hutchings.

I'm not having that. Bakayoko was poor on Tuesday, however no worse than the rest of them.

Devlin and particularly Leahy were poor throughout. Rotherham had a field day down their right side all evening.

I didn't mean he was a world beater far from it, but he was more impressive and effective up front that Roberts was last night, and certainly didn't deserve the stick he got. The team got booed off at half time and presumably full (I left after the 5th to catch the earlier train home), but I don't see why Bakayoko seemed to get singled out and took the flack.